Hildebrandslied

Contents

Wilfried van der Will vii Michael Butler Notes on the Contributors x

1 Hadubrand’s ‘Frageversäumnis’ in the Hildebrandslied 1 Robert Evans 2 Willehalm and Puzzât, Guillelme and Baucent: The Hero and His Horse in Wolfram’s Willehalm and in the Bataille d’Aliscans 13 Nigel Harris 3 Bürger and ‘das schwankende Wort Volk’25 David Hill 4 Moments of Emancipation: The Nineteenth-Century Heroine in German Literature 37 Ruth Whittle 5 ‘Apollo aber schließlich die Sprache des Dionysus’: Harmony or Hegemony in Die Geburt der Tragödie?51 Ronald Speirs 6 Ernst Stadler in Oxford: Addenda, Corrigenda and Two Unpublished Letters 59 Richard Sheppard 7 Historicity and All That: Reflections on Bertolt Brecht’s Die Maßnahme 77 Martin Swales 8 ‘Zwischen den Zeilen?’: The Development of Dolf Sternberger’s Political ‘Sprachkritik’ from the ‘Wörterbuch der Regierung von Papen’ (1932) to ‘Ein guter Ausdruck’ (1937) 86 Bill Dodd 9 The Paradox of Simultaneity: ‘Vergangenheitsbewältigung’ in Paul Schallück’s Engelbert Reineke 99 John Klapper 10 Authenticity and the ‘Speaking Other’: Günter Wallraff’s Ganz unten as an Industrial Fiction 110 Rob Burns vi The Challenge of German Culture

11 Grass Parodied: Notes on the Reception of Die Rättin 122 Manfred Durzak 12 East German Literature and the Cold War: The Example of Erich Loest’s Die Westmark fällt weiter 134 Martin Kane 13 Was bleibt Revisited: Christa Wolf and the Fear of Transience 144 Michael Butler 14 High and Low Literature and the German Reading Public 153 Keith Bullivant 15 Reflections on Jewish Culture in Germany since 1945 163 Eva Kolinsky 16 Reflections on German History and Anglo-Saxon Liberalism 175 Günter Minnerup 17 The Social Dynamics of Dictatorship: Re-evaluating the Third Reich and the GDR ‘From the Bottom Up’ 187 Jonathan Grix and Charlie Jeffery 18 Back to the Future: 1968 and the Red–Green Government 199 William E. Paterson

Wilfried van der Will: Publications 213

Tabula Gratulatoria 216 1 Hadubrand’s ‘Frageversäumnis’ in the Hildebrandslied Robert Evans

I

The Old High German Hildebrandslied needs little introduction. Comprising sixty-eight lines, some of them incomplete, of alliterative verse, the poem represents the only surviving fragment of a Germanic heroic lay from the Old High German period.1 A narrator recounts how two warriors, Hildebrand and Hadubrand, face each other in single combat as the champions of their respective armies. In accordance with warrior custom, Hildebrand, the older man, asks his opponent about the latter’s parentage. Hadubrand’s answer, however, causes Hildebrand to realize that the man he is about to engage in mortal combat is none other than his own son, the infant whom he had abandoned some thirty years earlier when fleeing into exile with Dietrich, his feudal lord, in order to escape from their deadly enemy Otacher. Hildebrand tries to persuade Hadubrand of this fact and attempts a reconciliation, but Hadubrand will have none of it, claiming that his father is dead and rejecting Hildebrand’s approaches as treacherous. Hildebrand must now decide whether he should unilaterally refuse to fight and thereby betray his lord and army, suffering in consequence a very public loss of honour, or join battle with his own son. Reluctantly he adopts the latter course. The fighting is being described in all its savagery when the text abruptly breaks off, giving no indication as to the outcome of the encounter.

1 2 The Challenge of German Culture

One puzzling question raised by the Hildebrandslied appears to have been largely neglected by previous commentators: namely, why is it that Hadubrand makes no attempt to test the veracity of Hildebrand’s claim to be his long-lost father?2 Hadubrand could surely establish once and for all whether there is any truth in the older man’s words by asking him a simple question (or questions) about his mother, Hildebrand’s wife, a question which the stranger standing in front of him could only be expected to answer convincingly if he really were Hadubrand’s father.3 Even if we make the (arguably unwarranted) assumption that Hadubrand’s mother died shortly after his father fled with Dietrich and whilst Hadubrand himself was still a small child,4 there must be something which those who brought Hadubrand up had told him about his mother which he could now use to test whether Hildebrand’s claim has any substance or not.5 Yet Hadubrand does not seek to question Hildebrand in this way. Is this simply because he places no credence in Hildebrand’s claim and hence sees no need to question him about it? Or does he perhaps refrain from questioning Hildebrand because he thinks that there might be some truth in the latter’s claim and would rather not know for certain whether his adversary is indeed his long-lost father? This essay will examine the possible reasons why Hadubrand does not ask Hildebrand a question which could definitively establish for him whether the latter is his father or not. It will seek to explain Hadubrand’s ‘Frageversäumnis’.6

II

Let us begin by exploring what grounds Hadubrand might have for believing that Hildebrand could be his father. First, it is plain that Hildebrand is old enough to be so. We know from the text that Hildebrand had sired a child before fleeing with Dietrich,

‘her furlaet in lante luttila sitten prut in bure, barn unwahsan, arbeo laosa: her raet ostar hina.’ (ll. 20–2)

(‘In his homeland he left sitting in his house his young wife and ungrown child, bereft of any inheritance. He rode off to the east.’) and that he has subsequently been in exile for thirty years: Hadubrand’s ‘Frageversäumnis’ in the Hildebrandslied 3

‘ih wallota sumaro enti wintro sehstic ur lante,’ (l. 50)

(‘For sixty summers and winters I have been wandering outside of my homeland.’)

Moreover, that Hildebrand looks his age seems to be supported by the fact that Hadubrand both calls him an ‘alter Hun’ (l. 39) and then refers specifically to his advanced age a couple of lines later:

‘pist also gialtet man, so du ewin inwit fortos.’ (l. 41)

(‘You have reached such a great age by continually having engaged in treachery.’)

In other words, it is hard to imagine that Hadubrand does not realize that the man standing in front of him is, if nothing else, at least the right sort of age to be his father. Second, Hildebrand’s claim to be Hadubrand’s father is arguably given some substance by the fact that not only is Hildebrand still active as a warrior at his advanced age, but he is also apparently the champion of his army. Hadubrand clearly believes his father to have been an outstanding warrior. This is demonstrated by the glowing terms in which he describes him:

‘her was Otachre ummet tirri, degano dechisto miti Deotrichhe. her was eo folches at ente: imo was eo fehta ti leop: chud was her ... chonnem mannum.’ (ll. 25–8)

(‘He was exceedingly hostile towards Otacher, the most loyal of warriors to Dietrich. He was always at the forefront of the army; fighting was always very dear to him. He was known to brave men.’)

Encapsulated within these four lines we can see all the essential attributes of a successful Germanic warrior in the Dark Ages: hostility towards one’s enemies (l. 25), loyalty to one’s own leader (l. 26), bravery and a love of fighting (l. 27), renown amongst one’s peers (l. 28). Hadubrand must realize, when Hildebrand first claims to be a close relative, 4 The Challenge of German Culture

‘wettu irmingot [quad Hiltibrant] obana ab hevane, dat du neo dana halt mit sus sippan man dinc ni gileitos ...’ (ll. 30–2)

(‘I call almighty God from Heaven above’, said Hildebrand, ‘to witness that you have never engaged such a close kinsman in single combat.’) not only that his opponent is approximately the right age to be his father, but also that this man, still fighting and seemingly still the champion of his army at such an advanced age,7 is likely to have had an exceptionally distinguished and successful military career. Hence he must possess the very same qualities which Hadubrand has attributed to his own long-lost father in lines 25–8. Third, there is geographical evidence which might seem to Hadubrand to support Hildebrand’s claim to be his father. In both line 18 (‘forn her ostar giweit’) and line 22 (‘her raet ostar hina’) we are told by Hadubrand that Hildebrand fled east with Dietrich. When Hildebrand comes to fight his son, he appears to be wearing Hunnish armour and/or trappings:

want her do ar arme wuntane bauga, cheisuringu gitan, so imo se der chuning gap, Huneo truhtin: ‘dat ih dir it nu bi huldi gibu.’ (ll. 33–5)8

(He then unwound from his arm spiral rings made of imperial gold which the king, the lord of the Huns, had given him: ‘I now give you this as a token of friendship.’)

This fact is not lost on Hadubrand, who refers to his opponent as an ‘alter Hun’ (l. 39).9 If Hadubrand can recognize Hildebrand’s equipment as being that of a Hun, then he clearly has some knowledge of who the Huns are and therefore where they come from. In other words, Hadubrand is highly likely to have known that the Huns, amongst whom his adversary has clearly spent time, came from the east,10 the same direction in which his father and Dietrich had last been seen heading some thirty years previously. A fourth reason for arguing that Hadubrand may suspect that there is some truth in Hildebrand’s claim concerns the apparent difference in tone between Hadubrand’s statement in line 29 that he does not think that his father is still alive, Hadubrand’s ‘Frageversäumnis’ in the Hildebrandslied 5

‘ni waniu ih iu lib habbe ...’

(‘I do not think that he is still alive.’) and his unequivocal assertion in line 44, namely after Hildebrand has claimed kinship (l. 31) and has offered Hadubrand his arm-rings as a token of friendship (ll. 33–5), that his father is dead:

‘tot ist Hiltibrant, Heribrantes suno.’

(‘Hildebrand, son of Heribrand, is dead.’)

Whilst Hadubrand’s statement in line 44 makes it clear that he has understood Hildebrand’s claim to be a ‘sippan man’ (l. 31) as a claim to be his father,11 there also seems to be a case here for arguing that the change in Hadubrand’s tone from one of supposition in line 29 to one of certaintyin line 44 mayreflect an inner crisis brought on bythe realization that the man standing before him could indeed be his long- lost father. In other words, line 44 mayrepresent the culmination of a desperate and panic-stricken attempt on Hadubrand’s part (beginning with the ostensible rejection of Hildebrand’s peace-offering in lines 37–8 and followed byan accusation of treacheryagainst the older man in lines 39–41) to convince himself, in the light of the doubts raised in his mind byHildebrand’s claims, that his father reallyis dead, and that this opponent, with whom he believes he has no choice but to do battle, must therefore be a treacherous liar whom he can kill with a clear conscience.12

III

The arguments marshalled hitherto suggest that Hadubrand may refrain from questioning Hildebrand and thereby testing the veracity of the latter’s claim to be his long-lost father because he is afraid that this claim may be true. It is now time to examine the case for arguing that Hadubrand does not try to establish whether there is any truth in Hildebrand’s claim because he simply does not believe it and therefore does not see any need to investigate it any further. First, it must be remembered that, at the time of his encounter with Hildebrand, Hadubrand has seemingly believed for some time that his father is dead. We are not told for precisely how long he has believed this, only that he was informed of his father’s death by seafarers: 6 The Challenge of German Culture

‘dat sagetun mi se˛olidante westar ubar wentilse˛o, dat inan wic furnam:’ (ll. 42–3)

(‘Seafarers travelling westwards across the Mediterranean told me that a battle took him away.’)

Although Hadubrand has been told of his father’s death by strangers and not by his own people (the ‘usere liuti’ of line 15, who had told him of his father’s character and subsequent flight), there are two good reasons why he should believe their reports to be true. The seafarers have not just told Hadubrand that his father is dead, but they have also told him how his father died (that is, in battle), something which would surely have lent credence to their claims that Hildebrand was dead. Furthermore, Hadubrand states that the seafarers were sailing westwards across the Mediterranean, that is to say they were coming from the east, the direction in which Hildebrand had earlier fled. Given, therefore, that the seafarers were coming from the direction in which Hildebrand was last seen heading (albeit some years earlier), it does not seem unreasonable for Hadubrand to accept that they could well have come across people who had known Hildebrand and who knew of his fate. If Hadubrand has these good reasons for accepting what the seafarers had told him as the truth and if their version of events has remained unchallenged throughout the intervening period, why should Hadubrand not reject Hildebrand’s claim to be a ‘sippan man’ (that is, his father) as a total and outrageous fabrication? This interpretation, however, requires an explanation for Hadubrand’s change of tone in line 44 as against line 29. If Hadubrand is already firmly convinced in line 29 that his father is dead, then why does he use the verb wa–nen and seemingly introduce an element of doubt about this fact? Why does he not simply state that his father is dead as he subsequently does in line 44? The most plausible explanation for Hadubrand’s behaviour seems to lie in a change in his attitude towards his opponent, a change which takes place as a direct result of Hildebrand’s claim to be a ‘sippan man’ (l. 31) and his offer of arm-rings as a token of friendship (ll. 33–5). Throughout his speech in answer to Hildebrand’s questions about his parentage (ll. 15–29), Hadubrand is both polite and forthcoming, quite happily supplying the older man with all the relevant information.13 His use of wa–nen can be seen as an indication of his courtesy. Rather than simply concluding his speech with an abrupt and unequivocal ‘my father is dead’, he ‘hedges’ using wa–nen in order to be more polite, even though he has no doubts that his Hadubrand’s ‘Frageversäumnis’ in the Hildebrandslied 7 father is indeed dead.14 In short, Hadubrand behaves throughout his speech in lines 15–29 in a professional manner and one befitting his status as the champion of his army. The same cannot, however, be said of Hildebrand in lines 30–5, and it is arguably Hildebrand’s words and actions in these six lines which bring about the change in Hadubrand’s attitude towards his opponent. If Hadubrand is firmly convinced that his father is dead, then he can only regard Hildebrand’s claim to be his father as both preposterous and, perhaps even more damagingly, as a cynical misuse of the information he has so politely, readily and profes- sionally supplied.15 As if this were not enough for Hadubrand, his opponent then proceeds to offend still further against the warrior’s professional code of conduct by making a peace-offering to a man with whom he is about to engage in mortal combat.16 Under these circum- stances it is hardly surprising that Hadubrand abandons his earlier politeness and rejects Hildebrand’s words as lies and his actions as treachery:17

‘mit geru scal man geba infahan, ort widar orte ... du bist dir alter Hun, ummet spaher, spenis mih mit dinem wortun, wili mih dinu speru werpan. pist also gialtet man, so du ewin inwit fortos.’ (ll. 37–41)18

(‘One should receive such a gift with the lance, point against point. You old Hun, you are exceedingly cunning. You entice me with your words, but you want to hurl your spear at me. You have reached such a great age by continually having engaged in treachery.’)

Second, the fact that Hildebrand proffers his son arm-rings as a peace- offering may in itself serve to support the view that Hadubrand does not believe a word of the older man’s claims. It has been argued earlier that if Hadubrand suspects there might be some truth in Hildebrand’s claim to be his father, his grounds for not seeking to question Hildebrand and establish once and for all whether or not it is true may be that he would rather fight whilst clinging to the belief that the man before him might not be his father, than face the prospect of having to fight in the certain knowledge of his adversary’s true identity. This argument is only valid, however, if it is impossible for Hadubrand to back out of the combat; that is, if his loyalty to his leader and his army, combined with his warrior’s pride and sense of honour, exclude the possibility of him 8 The Challenge of German Culture refusing to fight. Whether Hadubrand does have any scope for refusing to fight is something which we shall probably never know, but Hildebrand, for his part, does seem to have some scope for doing so – hence his peace-offering to Hadubrand in lines 33–5. Hildebrand manifestly feels that he can refuse to fight such a close kinsman without compromising his loyalty or honour, but only on one very important condition, namely that his opponent does likewise. In other words, a bilateral refusal to fight appears in Hildebrand’s eyes to be permissible, whereas a unilateral refusal on his part does not. That this is so can be seen in Hildebrand’s comments after his peace-offering has been rejected and he has resigned himself to proceeding with the combat:

‘der si doh nu argosto [quad Hiltibrant] ostarliuto, der dir nu wiges warne, nu dih es so wel lustit,’ (ll. 58–9)

(‘May he now be the most cowardly of the eastern people’, said Hildebrand, ‘who would refuse you combat, now that you are so eager for it.’)

If Hildebrand perceives it to be legitimate to agree, under certain cir- cumstances (such as his opponent being a kinsman), to a bilateral refusal to engage in combat without any damage to his reputation, then it is reasonable to assume that Hadubrand – like his opponent, a Germanic warrior and the champion of his lord’s army – might think similarly. Moreover, it could be argued that Hildebrand might not have troubled to make such a public peace-offering19 if he did not think that Hadubrand, like himself, had some room for manoeuvre in the matter of whether to fight or not. If Hadubrand does indeed have some scope for refusing to fight, albeit bilaterally, his failure even to attempt to establish whether or not Hildebrand is his father would seem to suggest that he simply does not believe a word of what Hildebrand says. A third piece of evidence in support of the view that Hadubrand simply does not believe his opponent’s claim to be his father can be found in lines 58–9. Hildebrand, effectively now resigned to the prospect of having to do battle with his own son, says that only the most cowardly eastern warrior would deny Hadubrand the combat now that he is so eager for it. This last comment may be highly significant. In stating ‘nu dih es (= wiges) so wel lustit’ (l. 59), Hildebrand is concluding that Hadubrand, far from simply not being prepared to pull out of the combat, positively wants it to take place (hence the use of the verb lusten20). After standing face to face with Hadubrand, hearing what he Hadubrand’s ‘Frageversäumnis’ in the Hildebrandslied 9 has to say and observing his reactions to all that has been said to him, Hildebrand, who is, after all, in the best position to judge such things, seemingly does not detect even the slightest sign of doubt in Hadubrand. Either Hadubrand has a quite exceptional talent for concealing his true feelings, or else he simply has no doubts because he does not believe that Hildebrand can possibly be his father.

IV

What, then, can be concluded about the reasons behind Hadubrand’s ‘Frageversäumnis’ in the Hildebrandslied? Does he refrain from testing the veracity of Hildebrand’s claim to be his father because he is afraid that it may be true and would rather cling to the hope that the man before him, whom he must shortly engage in mortal combat, might not be his father? Or does he simply not believe Hildebrand’s claim in the first place and thus sees no need to investigate it any further? Although it has been shown that a case can be made from the text for both inter- pretations, the latter appears ultimately to be far more plausible. The crucial issue here seems to be that any argument in support of the alternative viewpoint has to be based on the assumption that Hadubrand’s words and behaviour throughout the text are not to be taken at face value. It requires that Hadubrand’s dismissal of Hildebrand’s claim as lies, his rejection of the latter’s peace-offering as treachery and the insults which he heaps upon the older man in the process (ll. 37–44), should not be seen as a reflection of his utter contempt for Hildebrand’s words and actions, but should instead be regarded as a desperate attempt on Hadubrand’s part to remove the seeds of doubt which Hildebrand’s words have planted in his mind. Such an interpretation of Hadubrand’s words and behaviour, however, seems rather far-fetched for a number of reasons. Although it can be argued, for example, that Hildebrand may strike Hadubrand as being the right age to be the latter’s father and that he is returning from the same direction in which Hadubrand knows his father to have fled many years earlier, Hadubrand, as we have seen, has very good grounds for believing his father to be dead. Moreover, Hadubrand’s change of tone between line 29 and line 44 in all probability reflects not a panic-stricken attempt to overcome his doubts and convince himself that his adversary is not his father, but rather an indignant reaction to what he perceives to be dishonourable behaviour on Hildebrand’s part. Finally, it is plain that Hildebrand himself appears by line 59 to have detected not the slightest indication of doubt in the younger man’s words and actions (and 10 The Challenge of German Culture

Hildebrand must surely have been looking and hoping for just such an indication), but has instead concluded that Hadubrand is as keen as ever to go ahead with the combat. In other words, Hildebrand, after observing Hadubrand at close quarters and listening to all he has to say, reluctantly comes to the conclusion that Hadubrand’s words and actions can indeed only be taken at face value. In summary, it seems to me that Hadubrand’s ‘Frageversäumnis’ in the Hildebrandslied almost certainly stems from the fact that he simply never believes that there can be any truth in Hildebrand’s claim to be his father and so sees no need to investigate this claim any further. The most obvious explanation appears, on this occasion at least, also to be the correct one.

Notes

1. All line references are to the text as it appears in W. Braune and E. Ebbinghaus (eds), Althochdeutsches Lesebuch (17th edition, Tübingen, 1994), pp. 84–5. The translations are my own. 2. Hildebrand claims to be Hadubrand’s father on two occasions in the text. The first occurs in line 31 when he tells Hadubrand that he (Hadubrand) has never engaged in combat against such a close kinsman (‘sus sippan man’), and the second is in line 53 when Hildebrand refers to Hadubrand as his own dear child (‘suasat chind’). Some commentators point out that on the first occasion Hildebrand does not state openly that he is Hadubrand’s father, but claims only to be a kinsman – see for example B. Murdoch, Old High German Literature (Boston, 1983), p. 61. In this essay, however, I will show that, despite Hildebrand’s apparent ‘hedging’, Hadubrand is in no doubt whatsoever that the older man is claiming to be his father at this point. 3. Given Hildebrand’s (presumably exaggerated) claim that he knows all humanity (‘chud ist mir al irmindeot’, l. 13), Hadubrand would, to be on the safe side, probably need to ask him something more detailed than merely his (Hadubrand’s) mother’s name. 4. Neither the name nor the fate of Hadubrand’s mother is revealed in the text. The only reference to her (l. 21) is as the young wife (‘prut in bure’) whom Hildebrand left behind when he fled with Dietrich. The grounds for thinking that she may have died while Hadubrand was still small are to be found in lines 15–17 when Hadubrand states that he was told who his father was by the old and the wise amongst his own people (‘usere liuti, alte anti frote’). It is arguably unlikely that Hadubrand would have been given such information by anyone other than his mother if she were still alive. 5. Given that Hadubrand’s people have clearly told him so much about his father (ll. 15–29), it seems inconceivable that they would not also have given him a certain amount of information about his mother. 6. The term ‘Frageversäumnis’, meaning ‘failure to ask a question’, has been used by some commentators in connection with Wolfram von Eschenbach’s Parzival, especially with regard to the eponymous hero’s failure, upon his Hadubrand’s ‘Frageversäumnis’ in the Hildebrandslied 11

first visit to the Grail Castle, to ask his uncle Anfortas what ails him and so put an end to the latter’s suffering (Parzival, 255, esp. ll. 17–19). 7. It is difficult to know what the average male life expectancy was in Europe around AD 500, but there can be no doubt that Hildebrand has exceeded it. 8. We are not told, however, whether the army of which Hildebrand is now the champion is itself Hunnish. H. Kuhn (‘Hildebrand, Dietrich von Bern und die Nibelungen’ in his Text und Theorie, Stuttgart, 1969, p. 131) believes that Hildebrand is still Dietrich’s vassal and that the encounter with Hadubrand represents, in the legend of Dietrich von Bern, a stage in Dietrich’s return from exile (perhaps with a Hunnish contingent in his army). Kuhn does not, on the other hand, think it likely that Hadubrand is fighting for Otacher – ‘Kein Hörer wird leicht daraus ableiten, daß Hadubrand als Mann, gar als Vorkämpfer Odoakers auftritt’ (p. 31). 9. Hadubrand may, of course, intend this remark as an insult – see note 18 below. 10. The Huns originated from Asia, but swept westwards during the fourth and fifth centuries AD, overrunning much of central and eastern Europe. 11. On this issue see F. Norman, Three Essays on the ‘Hildebrandslied’, ed. A.T. Hatto (London, 1973), p. 20 and p. 45. Murdoch (op. cit., p. 61) believes that Hildebrand possibly refrains from stating openly that he is Hadubrand’s father in line 31 because he has been inhibited by Hadubrand’s earlier remark (l. 22) that he and his mother were left ‘arbeo laosa’, namely without any inheritance, when his father fled with Dietrich. This possibility cannot be discounted, but it relies upon Hadubrand’s ‘arbeo laosa’ either being intended as a criticism of his father or, if not, on it at least being regarded as such by Hildebrand. In the light of the praise which Hadubrand subsequently heaps upon his long-lost father (ll. 25–8), however, both of these interpretations of the remark appear unlikely. 12. I find it difficult to accept J. Knight Bostock’s suggestion (A Handbook on Old High German Literature, 2nd edition revised by K.C. King and D.R. McLintock, Oxford, 1976, p. 53) that there is no significant change in Hadubrand’s tone between line 29 and line 44. Bostock argues that Old High German wa–nen, ‘to think, believe’, implies greater conviction and certainty than its New High German derivative wähnen, ‘to believe (mistakenly)’. Whilst there may be some validity in this argument, a wealth of historical and etymological evidence suggests that the Old High German verb meant ‘to think, suppose, presume’ and nothing more definite than that (that is, wa–nen still allowed for a degree of doubt) – see for example J. Splett, Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch (Berlin, 1993), I (2), p. 1059. 13. See Norman (op. cit., p. 44). 14. I find implausible Gutenbrunner’s explanation of line 29 as ‘Die Vaterliebe hindert Hadubrand, schon an dieser Stelle zu sagen: “tot ist Hiltibrant”’ – see S. Gutenbrunner, Von Hildebrand und Hadubrand (Heidelberg, 1976), pp. 99–100. 15. See Bostock (op. cit., p. 51). 16. Norman (op. cit., p. 20 and p. 45) argues that Hildebrand’s invocation of the Almighty (l. 30) to bear witness to his claim to be a ‘sippan man’ further enrages Hadubrand in that the latter considers it blasphemous of Hildebrand 12 The Challenge of German Culture

to invoke God in support of what he (Hadubrand) believes to be an outrageously false claim. 17. Hadubrand presumably thinks that Hildebrand is resorting to such measures because the latter recognizes that he has met in the younger man an opponent whom he cannot defeat by fair means. 18. Most commentators take Hadubrand’s reference to Hildebrand as an ‘alter Hun’ at face value; that is, they are of the opinion that Hadubrand genuinely believes Hildebrand to be a Hun (see for example, Bostock (op. cit., p. 51); Murdoch (op. cit., p. 55); Norman (op. cit., p. 45, note 4); W. Schröder, ‘Hadubrands tragische Blindheit und der Schluß des Hildebrandsliedes’, Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte, 37 (1963), pp. 481–97, esp. p. 481). This interpretation assumes, however, that Hildebrand’s physical features, which the younger man can presumably see quite clearly (hence his references to Hildebrand’s advanced age, ll. 39 and 41), seem to Hadubrand to be consistent with those of a Hun. Given that the Huns, unlike the Germani, do not appear to have been fair-skinned (see O. Maenchen-Helfen, The World of the Huns, California, 1973, pp. 360–4), such an assumption may not be justified. Furthermore, both A.T. Hatto (‘On the Excellence of the Hildebrandslied’, Modern Language Review, 68 (1973), pp. 820–38, esp. p. 835) and D.R. McLintock (‘The Politics of the Hildebrandslied’, New German Studies, 2 (1974), pp. 61–81, esp. p. 64) make the point that the Huns were widely distrusted and regarded as treacherous, so there may be grounds for thinking that Hadubrand is not using ‘alter Hun’ as a purely factual description of Hildebrand, but as a term of abuse, knowing full well from his opponent’s physical features that this man is not a Hun. 19. Hildebrand’s peace-offering is ‘public’ in that the encounter with Hadubrand seems to be taking place in the ‘no-man’s-land’ between their armies (‘untar heriun tuem’, l. 3). It is hard to imagine that the armies would not have been looking on and have been able to observe Hildebrand’s actions from a distance. 20. The Old High German verb lusten, ‘to desire’, is being used impersonally here, taking the accusative of the person desiring and the genitive of the thing desired.